Spotify hacked

I will add a question here and I would be happy if the Rabbi would answer:
The company Spotify – has been suffering from the distribution of a cracked version of software, since its inception.

In 2018, an attempt was made for the first time to block cracked users. But the situation in which the software is distributed as cracked and can be obtained with any query on Google continues to this day.

This is puzzling because blocking the use of cracked software is not supposed to be particularly complex.

In addition, when I contacted the company – how it works to prevent the distribution of cracked software, I was told that when the company receives a report of the distribution of cracked software, it tries to take it down.

In practice, this claim does not stand the test of reality because a quick Google search leads to dozens of relevant results. It should be emphasized that the company is supposed to have the full tools to address this problem and there is no victim to be saved here – and as noted above, in the past they have even taken action – But since then it seems that this has been abandoned.

The question is whether the company, according to the reality presented here (and assuming that this is indeed the reality), does not act at all to prevent its theft by others, and stands by and does almost nothing to prevent it, is there a prohibition on using hacked software? Ostensibly, theft is theft, but the situation seems ridiculous –

This can be likened to a situation where, at a sales stand above which is a sign saying “Books for a fee only”, a person stands next to the seller and offers the books free to buyers –
The seller stands by and when asked why he is not doing anything to prevent this, he turns to the person and asks him to leave – the person does not respond. When the seller is offered to report this to the police, he refuses. And so this thing repeats itself every day. (Is it forbidden to take the book from the thief in this case?)

(To complete the picture – but this does not depend on the question – the company seems to have an interest in the possibility of hacked use because the damage it causes is less than the profits. The company probably gains more users – which increase the popularity and number of users of the software, than it loses paying customers)

If it was illegally hacked, there is no permission to use it without permission. It has nothing to do with the question of what efforts are being made to block it. The assumptions about the company's interest are also irrelevant.

Sorry, I didn't understand the rabbi's answer,
If the assumptions about the interests of society are correct — then apparently it is a situation of Niha Liya – and then apparently it is permissible

Or if we return to the example of the book stand – in a situation where the owner of the house is not careful about it – because his actions prove that he is not careful about it – apparently it is not theft (according to Tos in Kiddushin 4:)
As the camp of Ephraim writes:
“With regard to food in the market, it is invalid as evidence, because from there R”h Dairy said that he stole from others and ate, and the Toss made it difficult, ‘if so, you will be charged with theft, and Dairy will be excused immediately because there is no one who is careful about it. It is clear that anything that is not strictly observed is not theft.”

You can't determine what society thinks. She said what she thought, and everything else is a matter of the heart. I can just as easily take something from you by claiming you love me and therefore you must want me to enjoy it.
Estimates of what a person or society thinks cannot replace what they explicitly say.